Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did congress make a law? (Establishment Clause)
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 46 of 103 (190455)
03-07-2005 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Rrhain
03-07-2005 3:15 AM


Re: Oh, no...jar...you didn't!
Yup I did. When I'm speaking in casual conversation I often pay no nevermind to grammar and spelling. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way or phrase a thought within rigid bounds is severly handicapped.
Misuse and creativity is how a language grows.
This message has been edited by jar, 03-07-2005 10:10 AM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Rrhain, posted 03-07-2005 3:15 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 47 of 103 (190465)
03-07-2005 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by jar
03-01-2005 7:23 PM


Teach Your Children Well..
Jar writes:
Let's try to start teaching kids the truth. Don't add yet another layer of mythology between the kids and reality.
I agree. But we have to define what truth is. Some of us believe that morality and ethics have a spiritual dynamic behind them, while others believe that everything is all about biological and cultural conditioning.
At least we should teach the kids all viewpoints and the basis behind them.
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-09-2005 03:06 AM

Truth is stranger than fiction because we have made fiction to suit ourselves.
-- G.K. Chesterson
It ain't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so.
-- Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 03-01-2005 7:23 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 03-07-2005 12:10 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 49 by contracycle, posted 03-09-2005 4:15 AM Phat has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 48 of 103 (190470)
03-07-2005 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Phat
03-07-2005 11:50 AM


At least we should teach the kids all viewpoints and the basis behind them.
When it comes to moral systems (not a science subject but very important) I think we need to do a better job of exposing kids to source material. But that means teaching everything from the Greek Philosophers to Eastern Metaphysics to modern philosophers. The parents in the home can emphasize their own particular choice but in the public school setting Taoism and Christianity must receive equal emphasis.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Phat, posted 03-07-2005 11:50 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Rrhain, posted 03-09-2005 11:47 PM jar has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 103 (190717)
03-09-2005 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Phat
03-07-2005 11:50 AM


quote:
At least we should teach the kids all viewpoints and the basis behind them.
Why don't we just teach the stuff for which there is evidence? There's not point trying to cover EVERY wacky belief - I'm sure christian's wouldn't be very happy to have their religion squeezed into a fifteen minute slot between an alien abduction/hybrid theory and the ancient greek account of prometheus. On the other hand, thats exactly where I, as an atheist, want to put christians - in the same loony bin as all the other nutters.
Appeals for "equal time" are thus meaningless. The only stuff we should have any responsibility for teaching is stuff that is evidentially supported. If the US, or one of its states, specifically arranges for christian mythology to be taught alongside evidence-based evolution, and without giving equal dedication to alien abductions, it will be enshrining a religion with a governmental seal of approval.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Phat, posted 03-07-2005 11:50 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Phat, posted 03-09-2005 11:15 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 50 of 103 (190768)
03-09-2005 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by contracycle
03-09-2005 4:15 AM


I believe that the top 4 dominant rweligions of a culture should be explained in detail in a religious studies class, with passing refernce to all of the rest. I agree that religious theories about the origin of life should not be given a scientific consideration.
After all, we need to leave them a little slot in there to learn about Karl Marx!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by contracycle, posted 03-09-2005 4:15 AM contracycle has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 103 (190788)
03-09-2005 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Brad McFall
03-05-2005 6:11 PM


bump for Brad McFall
Brad, I responded to this message of yours here, and I was hoping you'd respond back. I very much enjoyed that old Carl Zimmer column from your high school paper and was wondering what you thought of it.
EDIT: wrong link
This message has been edited by berberry, 03-09-2005 11:53 AM

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Brad McFall, posted 03-05-2005 6:11 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Brad McFall, posted 03-09-2005 2:46 PM berberry has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 52 of 103 (190797)
03-09-2005 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by berberry
03-09-2005 12:52 PM


Re: bump for Brad McFall
I have not talked with Carl since High School. WE all had a big party at his house before us SMART"" kids went off to college.No one went to Harvard. One went to CooperUnion. I dont have any idea about how Carl takes what I mention about him now. It would not have been unusual for Carl to have picked up at Yale something biological that was not just a reflection of his high school opinions but I have not noticed. The point to really notice is to see that I was NOT catching phrases ( I WOULD NEVER HAVE ALLOWED even as a joke the phrasing that a CREATION book WAS "THE" biology book. The HM&JDMorris' are not on about this sillyness either... etc) but instead I was catching creatures
nor these kinds of editorial writings in general (yes I was not as good a writer and still am not but I wrote the dichtomies that matched the same outofdoors

actually collecting biological data-)
Just how come he gets a higher billing"" in society is a reflection more of what it wants to hear than what it actually is hearing.
Carl seems to perpetuate a VERY LARGE mistake that Ernst Mayr made but I have no real tendency to try to see if I can actually take Zimmer to task on that. It may be that he simply is writing biology in "editorial" mode. I havent spent a lot of time with his writings. I dont need to. I can read whatever original biology I desire. Ill explore the GRASS later.
I will explain how it appears to me that Carl has NOT "reremoved" the 'roadblock' Mayr asserts Darwin deSIGNED signing onto the DEsign of "modern genetics". Whether he makes this error on purpose as it appears in the piece from 81 or if it is just the failure of biology overall I will investigate if instigations are recalled. THERE IS NO NEW FACE as Mayr wrote in the late 60s. Many appear to be reading CZimmer as that. I dont. Relating that to the thread head would take some writing. Later-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by berberry, posted 03-09-2005 12:52 PM berberry has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 53 of 103 (190862)
03-09-2005 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by jar
03-07-2005 12:10 PM


jar responds to Phatboy:
quote:
When it comes to moral systems (not a science subject but very important) I think we need to do a better job of exposing kids to source material. But that means teaching everything from the Greek Philosophers to Eastern Metaphysics to modern philosophers. The parents in the home can emphasize their own particular choice but in the public school setting Taoism and Christianity must receive equal emphasis.
And how does any of this relate to the question of biology class in general and evolution in particular?
"Sorry...this is Biology 105. It sounds like you're looking for Philosophy 107. You'll want to go down the hall, out the east door and hang a left. Two buildings up on your right is the Philosophy department. Room 243, second floor."

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 03-07-2005 12:10 PM jar has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 54 of 103 (192181)
03-17-2005 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by gnojek
02-25-2005 6:21 PM


strange question...
As a non-American, and as an anarchist, I find your concern with the interpretation of eighteenth-century "supreme laws" rather amusing...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by gnojek, posted 02-25-2005 6:21 PM gnojek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2005 3:36 PM mick has replied
 Message 63 by gnojek, posted 04-01-2005 6:35 PM mick has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 55 of 103 (192349)
03-18-2005 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by mick
03-17-2005 7:00 PM


As a non-American, and as an anarchist
Anarchy seems kind of stupid. I mean, it falls apart (falls up?) into government at the slightest touch. And so, to maintain an anarchic state, you need an overriding authority to enforce anarchy, and doesn't that rather defeat the purpose?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by mick, posted 03-17-2005 7:00 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by mick, posted 03-19-2005 3:11 PM crashfrog has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 56 of 103 (192550)
03-19-2005 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by crashfrog
03-18-2005 3:36 PM


Hi crashfrog,
I'm not sure about that. Government puts a lot of effort into maintaining its "upwardness". I would argue that the contents of the constitution, for example, have been long opposed by the various US federal and local governments, and often by central government itself. So for example "seditious libel" (that is basically criticism of the government, under the Sedition Act 1798) was only ruled in law to be illegal according to the first ammendment in 1964(!). And the 1917-8 Espionage Act basically make it illegal to publish anything that makes a joke about the military uniform of the US army, and this law still stands (I think). And remember slavery, lack of ability of women to vote, etc. continued pretty late into US history. All of these are clear violations of the constitution. But whether a something is considered to be in violation of the US constitution is basically determined by the US court system (unelected). This is why using consitutional methods to try to prevent religious infiltration of science education (for example) might not work, simply because the supreme court is chock full of right wing christian fundamentalists! The court doesn't necessarily represent the interests of Americans. I'm not at all sure that US citizens can rely on the constitution to guarantee their rights. But that's just my idea, we have to hope for the best and support everybody who wants to challenge unjust laws whatever methods they choose to do it.
Cheers!
Mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2005 3:36 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 03-19-2005 7:34 PM mick has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 57 of 103 (192598)
03-19-2005 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by mick
03-19-2005 3:11 PM


I'm not sure about that.
I'm not sure you understood what I meant. Imagine three people in an "anarchic" state. That is, they stand around doing whatever they want to do, because there's nobody to tell them differently. No rules, etc.
One of the three - the physically largest - gets it into his head that the other two are going to do what he says. He bullies them into going along, and presto - instant government. The only thing that can stop this is some force to bully the bully, and that's government too, so how can anarchy work?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by mick, posted 03-19-2005 3:11 PM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by AdminNosy, posted 03-19-2005 8:20 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 58 of 103 (192611)
03-19-2005 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by crashfrog
03-19-2005 7:34 PM


Anarcy is not the topic
I think this has gotten to far from the establishment clause topic.
Let it go or start another thread, please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 03-19-2005 7:34 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 103 (195436)
03-30-2005 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by macaroniandcheese
03-02-2005 3:09 AM


brennakimi writes:
the consitutution cannot be a document frozen in time. it must evolve (sorry) along with the people it protects.
It evolves through ammendments.
Maybe we need an ammendment to thoroughly forbid mixing of church and state, since there is no such thing as of now.
Judges' interpreatations of the law can always evolve, but these interpretations really should stick to the letter and not embellish the law so much that it doesn't mean what it says anymore.
I think this is the case with the establishment clause.
brennakimi writes:
anyone can sign his child out of an evo class just as anyone can sign his child out of a sex ed class. that is free exercise. observable demonstrable science is not a religion no matter how people who believe in it behave nor how people who don't, respond to it.
I never said science was a religion or that creationism should be taught as science.
The whole point of this thread is to show that establishment by a state does not violate the establishment clause in the 1st ammendment and that any judge who rules against a state's establishment is not follwing the letter of the law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-02-2005 3:09 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-30-2005 2:48 PM gnojek has replied
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 03-30-2005 3:45 PM gnojek has replied

  
gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 103 (195441)
03-30-2005 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by jar
03-02-2005 11:59 AM


jar writes:
IMHO, it would likely violate the 14th. without even considering the 1st.. If we teach that one religion has the correct idea in our public schools we are not providing equal protection to all citizens. We would be discriminating and that would violate the 14th. irregardless of the existence of the 1st..
Well, that may be the case, but the rulings have all cited the 'clear viloation of the establishment clause' as the reason for banning teaching of creationism.
jar writes:
They don't divide up the day into subjects in elementary school anymore? Bummer. I know they did way back when I was there and when my daughter was there. They had a time to do arithmetic, geography, reading, spelling, history, singing and even play time. We all called it recess.
O, I don't know. I barely remember elementary school. I just remember there is one class you sit in with one teacher. That one teacher divides the day up into subjects, but it's not a separate class. There was no definitive line between one subject and another. I was just saying that a teacher in this format could go from teaching about reading a book one minute and be teaching about dinosaurs (the subject of the book) in the next and then tie that into creationism without 'teaching religion in science class.'
jar writes:
True but that has nothing to do with the issue. We're not talking public opinion but rather Law.
Ok, there's no law to say that one opinion must be taught over another opinion, no matter how much of the public shares that opinion. We like to think of things being taught in classrooms as facts, but they are usually facts spun around a particular perspective or opinion. You could say that the 1st ammendment is the law that forbids it, but that's the whole point of this thread. The 1st ammendment does not prohibit a state from establishing religion or teaching creationism in public schools.
As for the rest, what is taught as history is a great subject but OT for this thread. Start a thread on what should be taught as history and we can discuss it there.
Well, since I was using it as an illustration of different perspectives leading to different lesson plans, it seemed to be on topic, but whatever. {shrug}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 03-02-2005 11:59 AM jar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024